Comments on: Backblaze Lets You Forget About Backing Up – It’s That Easy

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 01:36:50 +0000

Forgot the title tag was customized. It’s now updated.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:14:27 +0000

RE: Title

Don’t forget to change the title tags! Google still picks up the older title and displays it in the search results. I thought this article was going to be a negative review until I read through it (and also noticed the title change on the page from these comments).

By: CB

CB — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:24:16 +0000

Oh, and Thomas, I think you should change the title. It’s too positive and easily understood.

By: CB

CB — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:23:12 +0000

Likewise I found quick attention on tech questions when I tried BB. I appreciated that. It left a good impression, such that if I do decide to return to cloud storage, I will in fact likely revisit BB first.

I’m just not crazy about having all my stuff on someone else’s machines. And I’ll echo Chuck (5/12/09) regarding Library and so forth. Lots of the App Support and so forth I certainly want backed up.

Meanwhile, I don’t bother with Time Machine, as it’s not bootable. Instead, I rotate four external drives (and now a fifth I just got for Snow Leopard) doing incrementals with Carbon Copy Cloner to keep my office machine mirrored at home. The externals stay in different places. A little more hassle, yeah. I don’t mind.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 02:10:37 +0000

Ok Ok. I updated the title.

By: David

David — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:11:18 +0000

Exactly what Evan said. Your title implies the exact opposite of what this article is about. You should definitely change the title of this article. I came to this site to read about the negative experiences you had with backblaze (as your title suggested). And wanted to know why I should forget about using backblaze as my backup service.

But I am glad you had a positive experience and this has pushed me to use their service.

thanks,
david n.

By: Evan

Evan — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:30:26 +0000

The title of this article “Forget about backing up with Backblaze” makes it sound like you thought Backblaze was horrible. Might want to revise it.

By: Amy Stewart

Amy Stewart — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:04:41 +0000

I am using Backblaze in combination with regular Time Machine backups, and I’ve been pleased so far. It’s been backing up for about a month and a half so far (130gb) and has about 6 gigs to go– probably another day or two at this rate. I’ve periodically tested the files as donwloads, and they’ve all come through intact. I do like the fact that in case of a disaster, I can get my most important job files back via hard drive. And I consider $5/month a reasonable price to pay for the peace of mind of having your data in the cloud.

I think a pretty good backup strategy is to use Backblaze in combination with weekly or monthly local Time Machine backups. In the event of a computer crash, you could back up your entire system from your most recent Time Machine backup in order to retrieve basic system settings and software, and then pull the most recent job files from BackBlaze if necessary. This seems like the easiest, no-hassle way to handle backups, IMO.

p.s. On a side note, the title of your post is a little ambiguous– at first read, it seems you’re saying you don’t like it– as in “Forget about trying to backup with Backblaze…”

By: Chuck

Chuck — Tue, 12 May 2009 14:55:35 +0000

My iMac’s been sending the initial backup for about a week now. I downloaded BB to my MacBook Pro and then forgot to install and initiate. I wrote and they said it was no problem, just start it over. So, since my iMac mirrors my MacBook Pro, and I use the iMac only a little while when I’m home, it makes much more sense to send the backup from there.

One other point, echoing Billy from Aberdeen: in the few e-mails I’ve had to send with questions that I couldn’t find answered in the online documentation, I had prompt, professional, and very clear replies. Good customer service makes a strong impression on me. If the technical side of this works out as expected, I’m pretty sure I’ll subscribe for at least a year, especially since an annual subscription saves $10 ($5/month, $50/yr).

My ONLY concern on this is that the service excludes certain other data that I’d really like to have out there, such as Library and similar collections of settings that I’ve built up over months and years.

Otherwise — it looks like one of those things that’s just smooth, easy, and effective. Even if I never need it, $50/year is well worth the peace of mind.

By: Billy

Billy — Sat, 09 May 2009 07:18:02 +0000

I have the same experience, very fast and so simple. I used Mozy with my Mac for over a year, but often had issues with the software becoming corrupt. The Backblaze (so far anyway) has backed up around 80GB in about 3 and a half weeks!!!

Very pleased. The other good news is that when I emailed for info I got responses the same day. If all goes wrong they will send all my files on a Western Digital hard drive (or multiple drives if more than 500GB files) at a cost of $190 each.

I find it all very reassuring.

Billy – Aberdeen, Scotland.

By: tim

tim — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:40:20 +0000

Good article! I'm currently weighing my backup options (and those of certain family members). I've heard of BackBlaze and it's good to see a review. a recent post on the subject: Onsite Versus Offsite Backup Solutions… What To Do?

By: John Tucker

John Tucker — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:24:10 +0000

Backblaze has been impressive for many online backup users. If you have a minute please come and share your experience of Backblaze with my readers. Thanks.